It sounds like the article writer has conflated two different stories:

He was then hired to build cabinets at the home of director George Lucas, who subsequently cast him in a pivotal supporting role for his film American Graffiti (1973). Ford's relationship with Lucas would profoundly affect his career later on. After director Francis Ford Coppola's film The Godfather was a success, he hired Ford to expand his office and gave him small roles in his next two films, The Conversation (1974) and Apocalypse Now (1979).

Ford's carpentry work eventually landed him his first starring film role. In 1975, George Lucas hired him to read lines for actors auditioning for parts in the film Star Wars (1977). Lucas was eventually won over by Ford's portrayal, and cast him as Han Solo.

uh, to some of the conspiracy nuts, those family members are not victims, but people complicit in the conspiracy. (Eg, the "evidence" of video showing a smiling father at a press conference [whose daughter was killed].)

It kind of sickens me when christians gush about just how much god loves us, and he loves us so much that he wants us to grovel to him, constantly, and we'd better do so because our afterlife is in the balance.

This is the kind of silliness that a small child would laugh at. Only an adult, facing the realization of pain and death, accepts the bargain: "OK, I agree to ignore common sense and accept these weird tenets and dogma, because the reward you're offering is so enormous and comprehensive."

We're all prolly doing this all the time. It's prolly just less noticeable.

Well, in a sense, yeah. Our [secular] leaps are less noticeable or they adhere to much more sensible tenets ("don't hurt your neighbor" "natural physical laws that exist today existed in the same way yesterday"). (And yes, "don't harm your neighbor" also can be a religious tenet; but oftentimes, that only applies if your neighbor is of the same religion.)

A christian's most objectionable tenets are things like "we are sinful" "a human needs to be murdered for others to prosper"-- things that need to be swallowed whole, with great difficulty at an impressionable age or they won't work.

I'm just saying that there's a political component to Al Qaeda thats missing when people talk about the jihadism. If islam didnt exist, there is good reason to think paranoid arabs would still get agitated about foreign bases in their country. Islam is not the cause; its the catalyst.

People don't willingly commit suicide for a cause minus religion.

Plenty of examples of this:

soldiers in combat (eg, guy throwing himself on a grenade, human wave attacks by Soviets or Chinese, Soviet tactic of ramming planes in WW2)

you can't score any points on him. he's incorporated illogic into his reasoning system. he's also got a huge array of apologetics so that he thinks he's defending his arguments, when he's really just repeating one huge circular argument.

If he (or his dad) are infinitely powerful, they can't change the "rules" they themselves established? (Not to mention that these "rules"-- you have to sacrifice an animal, or when the sin is really bad, a human-- are just nuts. What an odd rule for an infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, infinitely loving being to have established... It's almost like God were some archaic, bronze-age semitic tribesman...)